Forum:Content of the Wiki
Hello everyone, and I'm hunniebunn, bureaucrat and admin here on Potterpedia. We have a question, a problem if you will, and here it is: Is this wiki a book wiki or a Rowling information''wiki? Whilst it's true we have the Pottermore Wiki for Pottermore stuff and the Harry Potter Wiki for everything Harry Potter, it'd be unique for us to have Pottermore, books, and interviews, but not films and video games, all in one place. So, what thinks we? I go for yes, include '''all Rowling info' (meaning all info that comes directly from Rowling, not everything about Rowling). --Hunniebunn (talk) 21:39, October 18, 2012 (UTC) :O. k., I would say: Only books is a very great problem because it would leave out a lot of good informations. So the question really is: Shall this be a book Wiki or a Rowling information Wiki? I would say the last would be the best. Then we have more to tell the community and fans. [[User:Harry granger| Harry granger ]][[User talk:Harry granger| ' Talk ']] 22:08, October 18, 2012 (UTC) ::Exactly my point. If we should find ProfessorTofty agreeable to this approach, then I'll begin adding information immediately. --Hunniebunn (talk) 22:27, October 18, 2012 (UTC) :::Well, it seems to me that the main issue most people that have been turned off by the Harry Potter Wiki have had is that all this stuff from the movies and games and everything isn't directly overseen by Rowling. So if it's just stuff by Rowling that we'd be adding in, then I'd say, yeah, sure, go for it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:18, October 19, 2012 (UTC) ::::All righty then, three makes a census. I'd better get started, I have a job to do, or so I'd say. --Hunniebunn (talk) 00:19, October 19, 2012 (UTC) :::::Hi, I'm Tu-Sais-Qui, previously I had another account name that was Famini71, I'm a french woman (I don't speak very well english) and I was previously a french bureaucrat and admin of french HPWiki, but there was some problems so I left it (it's just a little presentation, I don't want to talk about what happened) and a few time another wiki about Harry Potter, named Sorcellerie-Info (it's the french name for the news program of the radio WWN in Harry Potter saga), with "J.K. Rowling information only". It seems to be the same aim than you. I'm here because I have seen that Hunnie Bunn had downloaded some of my own screenshots on HPWiki so I had read his profile and seen that it's a new wiki named Potterpedia (always a little presentation, of how I find your wiki). I have thought a lot about what you are talking about here, and if you take infos from Rowling, you will necessarily take some infos and illustrations from Pottermore. But you will take too from the film and videogames and other works because of several facts: for example the Black family tree that Rowling provided to the production of films, the Chocofrogs cards in the games (first introduction of Dymphna Furmage, Bridget Wenlock, Alberta Toothill, Merwyn...) and the HP Trading Card Game (first introduction of Coloshoo...), all of this are direct Rowling infos. It's not really easy to put the limits but I think that you here and me in another location will succeed soon in viewing exactly what we want exactly to do. Good continuation --Tu-Sais-Qui (talk) 13:40, October 19, 2012 (UTC) ::::::I just don't want to open Pandora's box here, but you have a point. Under this policy, we would still have stuff from the films and games if it could be positively IDed as originating from Rowling. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:46, October 19, 2012 (UTC) O. k., I read the post of Tu-Sais-Qui, whom I know already as Famini71 in the HP-Wiki. She has good arguments. When we want to use Rowling information only we cannot exclude all things of the films (see: Ginny Weasley's horse patronus: She did not write this in the books but after showing this in the film she said: "Yes, that's her patronus." There are no images in the books from the patronuses, but there are drawn pictures of Rowling (Tonks' werewolf patronus ...), but not all, the others are only known from the films, but they are nonetheless canon because they come from Rowling. Question is: What is with the pictures of Warner Bros. from the internet? That's a matter of discussion. We know from the Trading cards that Madam Hooch's name shall be Rolanda and the spells which are mentioned in the books are from Rowling. Yes, where is the line? We can discuss now or from case to case but we must discuss about it. And when Tu-Sais-Qui (You-Know-Who) :-) has on her Sorcellerie-Info Wiki the same theme perhaps she can discuss with us and we get a common line for this and her Wiki. [[User:Harry granger| Harry granger ]][[User talk:Harry granger| ' Talk ']] 19:35, October 19, 2012 (UTC) Those are rather good points you all make. Hm.. I suppose it'd be a rather cautious line to draw if we included all that info, but at the same time it ''would ''be rather nice to include ''Pottermore ''information. How about... images from films and ''Pottermore ''(the latter being preferable) can be included, and only info that is ''known ''to come from Rowling to be included? For instance, we ''know ''that the Frog Cards come directly from Rowling (I didn't until I was told), but we ''don't know ''whether ''Orbis ''and ''Verdimillious ''are from Rowling. Frog Cards, yes. Things we aren't sure about, no. Hopefully we all understand it, but it will take a while for us to convey the information to new people without causing confusion. 00:51, October 24, 2012 (UTC)